Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar has dismissed a habeas corpus petition and affirmed a preventive detention order issued under the J&K Public Safety Act against a detainee accused of using Facebook to disseminate material viewed as a threat to security and public order. The Court held that the detaining authority’s satisfaction was founded on the detainee’s social media activity and related reports indicating conduct prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order and was not a mechanical exercise. Finding no merit in the challenges based on alleged non-supply of documents, non-application of mind, or failure to use ordinary criminal law, the Court declined to interfere with the detention.

The petitioner challenged a preventive detention order dated 10.02.2024 issued by the District Magistrate, Kupwara under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, placing Waseem Ahmad Dar under detention to prevent him from engaging in activities considered prejudicial to the security of the State.

Also Read: UPSC Must Treat Teachers Gaining 10 Years’ Experience Between Original And Revised Deadlines As Eligible : Supreme Court Allows Appeals In 2021 Delhi Principal Recruitment Challenge

The petitioner contended that the detention was unconstitutional, asserting violation of Article 22(5) and Section 13 of the Act, alleging non-supply of complete material, vague and stale grounds, non-application of mind, and failure of authorities to decide his representation.

The respondents stated that all statutory requirements were complied with, that the petitioner was supplied with the grounds of detention, dossier, relevant documents, notices, and Urdu translation, and that the material was read over and explained to him. They asserted that his activities were prejudicial to security and that the detention record substantiated their position.

During arguments, the petitioner focused on three aspects: non-supply of material, mechanical reproduction of the police dossier, and failure to resort to ordinary criminal law before invoking preventive detention. The Court examined the detention record and the grounds of detention, including complaints under Sections 107/151 CrPC, screenshots of Facebook uploads, and copies of the orders by the Executive Magistrate.

The Court recorded that the petitioner had raised several grounds, but his arguments centered on three issues. On the allegation of non-supply of material, the Court observed: “a perusal of the detention record would reveal that the petitioner has been furnished a total of 23 leaves… The execution report bears signatures of the petitioner and the detention record also contains the receipt executed by the petitioner.”

It further noted that the detaining authority relied upon complaints under Sections 107/151 CrPC and videos uploaded by the petitioner on Facebook. The Court recorded: “Not only the copies of the complaints… have been furnished to the petitioner but… the detaining authority has provided the screenshots of the Facebook pages… Thus, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has not been provided whole of the material that formed basis of the grounds of detention.”

On the allegation of non-application of mind, the Court stated: “after narrating the background facts, the detaining authority has clearly framed its opinion that the activities of the petitioner are highly prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory… it is not a case where the detaining authority has mechanically copied the contents of the police dossier… but… has applied its mind to the police dossier and the material annexed thereto.”

Regarding the argument that authorities should have proceeded under ordinary criminal law, the Court observed: “no FIR has been lodged against the petitioner nor it is a case where the petitioner was on bail… It is on the basis of these anti-national videos/photos/posts/chats… that the detaining authority was satisfied that it is necessary to detain the petitioner… There was no occasion for the respondents either to resort to normal criminal law or to seek cancellation of his bail.”

The Court concluded its reasoning by recording: “I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of detention.”

Also Read: "Reasonable Grounds" For NDPS Bail Not Same As 'Proof' Under BNS : J&K High Court

The Court directed that “the petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. It found “no ground to interfere with the impugned order of detention.” The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Altamash Rashid, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA

Case Title: Waseem Ahmad Dar vs UT of J&K & Ors.
Case Number: HCP No.73/2024
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar